Re: bundling is inherently unfair to consumers

["Lewis A. Mettler" <lmettler@lamlaw.com>]

Eric,

"Eric M. Bennett" wrote:
> 
> Dan Strychalski wrote:
> 
> >Lewis A. Mettler <lmettler@lamlaw.com> wrote --
> >
> > > Bundling always causes two affects:
> > >
> > > 1) the price is either raised or kept high to cover the bundled products
> > > 2) choice is limited in the short and long term
> >
> >I've felt all along that there was something to what Lewis was saying.
> >Thinking about an example that, on the surface, seems entirely
> >beneficial to some consumers, I recently came to the conclusion set
> >forth above. That bundling can sometimes provide some benefit does not
> >mean that it is not at the same time harmful in some other way.
> 
> There is a conflict between lowered *total* cost (relative to buying
> multiple items separately) for people want the bundle, and there is
> increased cost as in Lewis's point (1) above for people who do not
> want it.  Not having the bundle is unfair to one group; having the
> bundle is unfair to the other group.  The free market should be able
> to balance out the price concerns.

That is why Microsoft sells Word separately and as part of a suite.

Word is cheaper than the suite by itself.  And, Windows would be cheaper
by itself as well.

Of course, Microsoft clearly has claimed to have the raw monopoly power
to charge the same regardless of the packaging.  They do not do that
with Word but they have at least some competition with Word.


> 
> Right now I am eating Campbell's split pea & ham soup that I bought
> at the store.  They don't make a version of this same soup without
> the ham.  Is that "unfair" to people who don't like ham?  Maybe.  But
> if they made every possible variety of soup, the grocery store
> wouldn't have room to stock all of them.

Please check with your auto dealer before you suggest that all consumers
must buy the same model, color and options on all cars.

> 
> I trust that in a free market, a reasonable array of options that are
> in demand will be offered.  There is nothing wrong with not having
> *every* conceivable choice available on the market.  If you're on the
> fringe where the product you want isn't offered commercially, you can
> either cook your own soup or--if you want an OS without a component
> that all major vendors bundle--you can pick up the Linux or FreeBSD
> source and put together your own OS.

Every conceivable options does not need to be offered as it is not with
automobiles.

However, hundreds are and for one reason only.  All consumers want
choice.

Plus it is much more efficient to offer thousands of choices on computer
software than it is to offer a hundred or so on a Ford car.

Suggesting that millions of choices are not feasible is a long way from
suggesting that no options should be offered to anybody by anybody.

All you have to do is let the OEM decide and only be obligated to pay
for actual products sold.

No body has to decide for Dell, IBM, HP, Gateway, Compaq or anybody
else.

They certainly do not give that authority to you nor anyone else
willingly.

You nor anyone should have any more say over what software options they
market than you do over hardware options.  And, they clearly market
hundreds of those.



-- 
Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer)
lmettler@LAMLaw.com
http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust
trial)